Witnesses observed the Cessna 150 as it departed the airport near Topping, Va., and reported that it appeared to have trouble climbing.
It returned to the runway two times, but the pilot aborted the landing approach both times.
During the climbout following the second aborted landing, the airplane banked to the left, descended in a nose-low attitude, and hit the ground, killing both people on board.
Witness descriptions of the descent and observations of the wreckage and accident site were consistent with the pilot flying the airplane beyond its critical angle of attack, which resulted in the airplane entering an aerodynamic stall/spin.
Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
Toxicology testing identified a prescription antidepressant and its metabolite, as well as a prescription drug used to treat hypertension in the pilot’s liver and blood. These medications are unlikely to have contributed to the accident.
Calculations of the airplane’s weight and balance at the time of the accident showed that it was likely loaded just below or slightly in excess of its maximum gross weight.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the pilot’s failure to maintain airplane control, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall/spin.
NTSB Identification: ERA14FA328
This July 2014 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Learn from the misfortune of others
Sign up now to receive NTSB Accident Reports and GA news in your email inbox. Join 110,000+ fellow aviators.
Recommend using 20° flaps until short final before adding another 10–20 unless there was a strong crosswind I would maintain 20degrees flaps,that would make it a lot safer for go around
Completely agreed. That’s precisely what my CFI tells me everytime when land. Great piece of advice.
Reading Brian’s reply to this unfortunate accident was informative. Brian did not try to second guess the pilot’s intentions or give negative comments about what the pilot did. He took his experience and shared it so that those that find themselves in a similar situation can make an informed decision before they put themselves (and others) into a dangerous situation.
I didn’t see any mention of flap settings. If the airplane was configured for landing (30 or 40 degrees of flaps), the rate of climb will be really “leisurely” unless the correct airspeed for that configuration is nailed accurately. There isn’t much margin between best ROC with 30 or 40 degrees of flaps and the stall speed, so accurate speed control in this situation is vital. Even though the POH on earlier 150s ranks among the great works of fiction of all time, it is worth looking at because it does give an idea of the correct airspeeds required. Full throttle and full flaps at 90 mph gives 600 fpm DOWN . . .
The 150 payload is limited for several reasons. These airplanes were designed long, long ago when a “standard FAA person” weighed 160 pounds, and people are simply bigger nowadays. Heck, I’m not a big guy, and I weigh about that – 99% of the flight students I’ve seen are bigger. The 150 isn’t exactly burdened with excess horsepower either, and as is correctly pointed out, density altitude may well have been a factor in this accident, although I would like to know the flap settings as well.
Brian, you might want to check your airplane for rig and for static RPM, which will give a rough idea of developed horsepower. Your airplane should do somewhat better than the figures you give – not hugely, but probably 400 to 450 fpm minimum. That said, I’ve seen otherwise identical 150s some of which would climb at 750 fpm on a hot day, and some which could barely do 400 fpm, same prop (not one cruise, one climb) same engine, about the same time since MOH, etc. (We had something like 20 150s, so I had plenty to compare.) We were never able to fix the 400 fpm airplane, either.
What this sounds like to me is that the pilot got rattled after two rejected landings, didn’t control the airspeed properly and forgot to raise the flaps so the airplane would climb. A 150 does NOT have enough horsepower to power its way out of trouble, so we have to be careful and not get into situations where applying 450 hp would cure our problem.
We 150 drivers do have to remember that we are flying a C-150, not a C-130, but a healthy 150 flown at no more than MTOW is a safe airplane and as we well know, economical to operate, even by aviation standards.
Best Regards,
Mike Arman
N150EM
“,,,killing both people on board.”
As a Cessna 150 owner, this struck me as the first link in the chain. A Cessna 150 has a very low useful load, typically less than 500 lbs including fuel Most other 150 owners I know agree that unless you put 1/2 load of fuel or less, it is basically a one-person aircraft for most. Add a second adult, or even a small child, and you approach gross weight in a hurry, which coincides with this finding:
“Calculations of the airplane’s weight and balance at the time of the accident showed that it was likely loaded just below or slightly in excess of its maximum gross weight.”
Since the accident occurred in early July, I’d also wonder what the density altitude was at the time of the accident. Combined with being at max gross weight, it would indeed be very difficult for the aircraft to climb. I have witnessed this in my own 150, having a second adult in the right seat, even with less than 1/2-full tanks on a hot day this past June, density altitude at my home airport was 2,600′ – field elevation is 529′. When climbing out of the pattern, we could barely maintain 200-300 fpm climb at full power.